Sunday, April 22, 2012

Under the previous Labour govt, right-wing bloggers used to quack on about "nanny state," utterly oblivious to the fact that National govts are equally full of such "mother/father knows best" types.

For an example, look no further than National MPs Tim Macindoe, Jackie Blue and John Banks (do you want to pretend he's not one? Really?). These three are backing raising the alcohol purchase age to 20, or even worse, enacting some kind of split purchase age level so that... so that... well, I'm fucked if I know what the aim of it is apart from making the law a lot more complicated. It seems to be one of those compromises in which you choose the most stupid, pointless, expensive and difficult option exactly and only because you get to call it a compromise.

These pompous do-gooders cite "overwhelming public support" for raising the age. Well, duh. It's no skin off my nose to support a law that only affects other people - why wouldn't it have overwhelming public support, given the small proportion of the population it's going to affect? I expect a poll tax on Chinese immigrants used to have overwhelming public support for exactly the same reason. What counts is how much support this law change has among the citizens it will apply to - I haven't seen any figures on that, but I'm willing to bet "overwhelming support" wouldn't be an apt description.

This will be an interesting conscience vote - it will tell us who in Parliament has the integrity to stand up against the practice of picking on a minority for the sake of being seen to do something about a problem. (Except in the case of Winston First MPs - this proposal is actually a very close fit with their "You kids get off my lawn!" policy, so they probably won't go with a conscience vote). Happily, it will also tell us which MPs are such cowardly weasels that they'd inflict by far the worst option on us for the sake of being able to say they reached a compromise.

8 comments:

I think a 2-tier drinking age may be very effective. Two years drinking in a controlled responsible host environment before being given the right to buy as much as you like to bring into everyone's community may be quite effective.

I don't agree with raising the age to 20 for all, but this would be a start to introducing the concept that responsibility goes with rights.

The ideal would be also bringing back the law that forbids being drunk and disorderly in a public place. Cop cams and morning after court sessions would soon sort a few losers out.

PM is absolutely right.When you see talk of a higher drinking age, coupled with the plain wrapping for fags, you do have to wonder about National's nannies.Has John Key started wearing Uncle Helen's trousers?

Ho ho! Uncle Helen!! What a comic genius you are Fairy. You should be writing comedy for the NBR, not the unreadable infomercials they have you doing. Is that why you took your blog down? Wee bit ashamed were we?

I think a 2-tier drinking age may be very effective. Two years drinking in a controlled responsible host environment before being given the right to buy as much as you like to bring into everyone's community may be quite effective.

Personally, I believe this is wishful thinking. It's how we'd like it to work, but the actual effects would be complication of the law and a proliferation of cheap "yoof" bars.

The ideal would be also bringing back the law that forbids being drunk and disorderly in a public place.

On that we can agree, at least. Drunk and disorderly was a very useful law - I don't mind the idea of giving the cops carte blanche to get a pissed wanker off the street if they think it's a good idea. "You can sleep at home tonight, if you can get up and walk away," as Pete Townshend put it.